text:
Is it bad form to call "ready to depart" when you know you won't be cleared yet?
My local aerodrome is towered and has parallel hard and grass runways. Simultaneous parallel departures or landings are not normally allowed. On one occasion we had been instructed to "line up and wait" on the grass runway. While I was performing the pre-take-off checks, an arriving aircraft was cleared for touch-and-go on the main runway. I observed it on short final as I completed my checks, and called "ready to depart", even though I knew that we would not be granted take-off clearance until it was well into its climb-out.
My instructor later told me that asking for clearance when you know you can't have it yet is bad form, and that he would have told me not to, if he had seen the traffic (which had been in his blind spot). I can see how it could seem like impatience or poor situational awareness, but it seemed to me like it helps the controller by letting them know they can get me off the runway as soon as they're able. Additionally, I've been taught that in other situations it's good to get a call in as soon as I can and there is clear air (such as downwind and final calls).
I'd like to get some clarification on this. Is it bad form? Why: for one of the reasons I suggested, or because of some other reason? What other situations does this generalise to?

I don't think it is.  Knowing who's ready and who is clearable is the controller's job.

"Landing traffic in sight, ready to depart" Is also acceptable, but as far as I'm aware, there is no harm in telling the tower that you are ready to go, they will issue clearance when ready. Usually this will be met with a "standby" if they can't do it, but I don't see the harm. Its not your responsibility to know when you can be cleared, only to know that you can't enter protected areas or that you have clearance to perform what you want.

In my home airport, Delta calls the tower from the taxiway. Ain't nobody got time to hold short.

As you were already told to line up and wait, tower will assume that you are ready for departure. If you were instructed to line up and wait, but were not yet ready for departure, you should reject the instruction and ask to hold short until you are ready. There is nothing more annoying that just squeezing in a departure before an arrival, only to find out after the departure has lined up that they will be blocking the runway for a few minutes, resulting in a go around ...

@J.Hougaard At this aerodrome, typically the tower instructs "line up and wait" as part of the taxi instructions, if there's no other traffic for the grass runway. But that's a peripheral point: the question's the same if I complete my checks at the holding point instead.

I don't think that point is peripheral:  If your airport has local procedures that include doing runup checks on the runway, after a LUAW, then that is specific to your airport (and unusual); we on this board can only answer in a general sense.   If you completed your checks at the hold point, called "ready to go", received LUAW, then again calling "ready to go" from the runway is not appropriate (see my answer)

@abelenky I'm not talking about run-up checks, I'm talking about a pre-take-off check that happens after taxi. We had a long conversation in [chat] about why our checks are a little funny, and this margin is not large enough to contain it. For the record, I'm not talking about calling ready twice. This is the only ready call after the last checks, whether at the holding point or already lined-up.

Informing the controller that you are ready to depart and requesting a takeoff clearance aren't the same thing.
It isn't bad form to inform the controller when you're ready for the next phase; if the controller isn't ready yet, you won't receive a takeoff clearance, but the good news is that now the controller is ready to get you going as soon as possible since your intentions have been declared, and she also has some time to think about what will happen next.
It opens up time for the controller to plan and coordinate.
Situation A:  You wait until the landing traffic is clear of the runway before you state that you're ready for departure, and then the tower clears you; you takeoff.
In this situation, the tower had a short time to react to your request and possibly plan other traffic around you.
Situation B:  You state that you're ready for departure, the tower acknowledges and requests for you to hold short for landing traffic. The traffic lands, and then, the tower clears you; you takeoff.
In this situation, the tower could have altered other inbound traffic to provider a bigger safety buffer for you due to the increased time given to asses the current traffic conditions at the airport.

Well, I respectfully disagree with sit B: If there is time to take off before the incoming traffic, then the situation does not apply to this question ("you know you won't be cleared"). If there isn't time, then tower will not wave a landing to accommodate a t/o.

I somewhat agree with @Radu094. As written, it does not really match the situation in question where we know there is an aircraft on final with landing clearance. However the cases still apply to the next approaching aircraft. If the controller knows you are ready soon enough, they may clear you for immediate take-off between the landing aircraft, while if they don't know they would either inquire, or just let you wait for larger slot.

I'm thinking that maybe you guys are over thinking this.  I'm not talking about waiving landings at all.  It's just a matter of providing information sooner to allow for improved coordination.

From an ATC perspective - no, reporting ready for departure is not bad form, quite the opposite!
The sooner we know you are ready, the sooner we can start planning other traffic to accommodate your departure. Even if there is another aircraft on final occupying the runway, it doesn't mean we can't start preparing your takeoff. Maybe there is traffic in the departure sector that needs to be moved around a bit, maybe the next inbound needs to get a slightly longer vector to create a gap for your departure, maybe another aircraft can be cleared to taxi a shorter route because we know you will soon be moving away from the holding point, maybe we need to make a telephone coordination with the next sector before you can go - the list goes on!
Besides, having an aircraft on final is just one of many things that can delay your departure. Maybe we have technicians working further down the runway that you can't see, maybe there is traffic overflying the airport blocking departures, maybe there is a flock of birds over the runway that must be scared away, maybe there is traffic operating on the runway handled on a different radio frequency ... what I'm trying to say is, in the cockpit, you don't have the full picture - and you shouldn't have; that's the job of those of us sitting in the tower. So there is no need for you to spend extra energy trying to do our job for us. In essence, we are there to help you, not the other way around. So please, do share any information you have as soon as possible, then it is much easier for us to provide good service.
As a small footnote, if you were not actually ready for departure when you were instructed to line up and wait, I think you should have informed the controller at that point. When we instruct someone to line up and wait, we more or less expect them to be ready. If you tell us you are not yet ready, we have time to change the plan if needed (possibly let you hold short). But if you wait until you are lined up and we clear you for takeoff to say that you are not yet ready, we suddenly have a blocked runway we were not expecting, and that can be a bit of a hassle.

From my ATC perspective, yes reporting ready for departure when there is an aircraft on half-mile final is bad form! At my slow airport anyway. In the US we have to respond with either "Cleared for takeoff" or "Hold short of runway xx" and if we issue the hold short we have to make sure it's read back properly, which it often isn't. If the a/c waits until final is clear, more often than not we can issue takeoff clearance immediately and be done with it.

@randomhead For me it depends. For a small training aircraft which has been holding at the holding point for a few minutes doing checklists, engine run-up and what not, I would like them to report ready as soon as they are ready. But I agree with you that for anyone else (aircraft which are generally ready as soon as they reach the holding point), having them report ready is annoying

I see a contradiction in your question.
In my experience, you do not receive an instruction to "Line Up and Wait" until after you call "Ready to Go".   Once lined up and waiting, you should be doing nothing but waiting for the "Cleared for Takeoff Call".   Pre-takeoff runup checks are inappropriate while Waiting at this point, and should have been already completed.
So (within my experience) I think you should have received a LUAW instruction in response to your "Ready to Go" call from the runup area or hold short line, which you should've made after you finished your checks, making another "Ready to go" call while waiting would be inappropriate.

While run-up should clearly be complete before taxiing to the runway, I believe complex aircraft have pre-take-off checklists that are to be run when holding or lining up (lights, flaps, power setting and such.) and that and that big jets sometimes do stand around the beginning of runway with clearance already for half a minute to minute running this checklist.

As I said in the comments, since there are only two aircraft here that regularly use the grass runway, we'll often be instructed to line up and wait as part of the taxi instructions. We complete engine run-up and power checks before taxi-ing, but we also have a short pre-take-off checklist to run after completing taxi-ing. Regardless, I think this point is a red herring: the question is the same if we're doing our pre-take-off at the holding point nearest the runway threshold.

It obviously depends from case to case, even from airport to airport
As a general rule however  I do consider it bad form. Let's tally it up:
Cons:

It opens the door for an accident if tower is making a mistake and clears you for T/O (yes, you can still see traffic, but a pilot might attempt the T/O if cleared)
Scares the bejesus out of the pilot just attempting to land (because: has he not seen me?)
Keeps the frequency busy at a critical time for landing traffic (ie. in case tower needs to wave the landing)

Pros

You save about 2 seconds (the time it takes you to inform ATC after the traffic has landed)
Tower knows you are ready for take off (which he doesn't care at this point and will ask anyway if he needs to know now)

Just my 2c. Feel free to add to the list if you can think of something else.
PS. Oh, and just wanted to add: Calling ready can be interpreted as a a passive-aggressive way of asking the other traffic to hurry up. Like that time we were being pushed back in front of another a/c, and they called "ready to taxi". Translation: "we could be taxing now if it wasn't for you"

I disagree that the tower does not care about your readiness. Unless there is a lot going on at that moment, informing the tower of your situation should be done IMO, not because you are in a hurry, but so they know the current situation more accurately.

Well, what difference would it make for the tower if the traffic holding short is ready or not? Landing traffic means runway is busy for the next 1 or 2 minutes. If he is actually thinking of squeezing you in between arrivals he might drop a Q: "are you ready for immediate departure?"

Be aware there are two runways in this situation.

the system isn't set up as controllers polling aircraft for their status. It's set up for pilots notifying the tower when they need something. On a modestly busy airport with multiple runways, there might be 3 or 4 aircraft at different intersections preparing for departure. The controller can't ask each of them in turn. They rely on the pilots to notify them of current needs. This is not even considering ground control which also needs to know this information to determine where to route aircraft that are ready to taxi for departure.

of course it's not a polling system. We are discussing the (very specific) case when you know twr cannot clear you for departure.  My point was if they really need to know they will ask you. And what does ground/taxi have to do with anything? we are talking about people holding short (or on the runway in the OP)

the first statement about safety doesn’t make sense: if you know you can’t go safely, you are required not to go. If you don’t know, then this question doesn’t apply. Therefore there is no safety difference between you knowing there is conflicting traffic (and saying something, but not going even if you get a conflicting clearance) and you not knowing there is conflicting traffic (and the question becomes moot).

@Peter hmm, you have a point there. I was thinking,say, a student pilot receiving a clearance and thinking the tower knows best (you'd be surprised the number of students blindly following ATC w/out questioning).  I kinda think it has a safety value, but feel free to remove/edit the list if you feel like it doesn't apply

at my local airport, there are often lots of people queueing for the single runway. You queue 3-wide in the run-up area, so it is very important to say when you are ready. To avoid it being passive-aggressive, I often say “N1234 ready for departure in sequence”. The “in sequence” part tells folks that I am not trying to cut in and that I do not expect an immediate clearance.

Yeap. "with traffic in sight" or "in sequence" will definitely take the bad form off. Like I said, it depends on the airport and situation. I'll try to edit/blend this into the answer when I get to a desktop

This is one time you should not let an instructors comment damage you for life.  Communication and flexibility are cornerstones to making a dangerous job a lot safer.
Rather than hashing through scenario after scenario to try to determine "right" or "wrong",
It may be helpful (at the appropriate time) to discuss with your instructor why it is wrong and when it might be better and when not.
The biggest issue is being aware of others around you and their needs.  I have to admit, someone calling "ready to depart" while I was on short final would send a chill up my spine, no doubt! (They don't see me!).
So, while communicating readiness to the tower makes a lot of sense, the TIMING of the comment could really mess up the pilot on short.
That is probably what the instructor meant.

I consider it bad form and poor airmanship to call "Ready for takeoff" when another aircraft is on final and it is obvious you can not be given a takeoff clearance.
This just causes the tower to respond "Hold short due to landing traffic." It adds unnecessary radio congestion and workload when there is no need for it.
I always wait at least until the landing aircraft about to clear the runway so can respond with a takeoff clearance or "Line up and wait".
Tower controllers can see who is ready and will often clear you to position or even clear you for takeoff without you having to call ready.

A controller cannot/should not clear an aircraft to position or takeoff who has not requested it!  Radio traffic is based on a series of Requests and Responses, you cannot have a response without the request, especially for something as important as takeoff. As far as Tower knows, you're still doing your checks, inputting your Flight Plan, and possibly troubleshooting a problem.  (since your profile says you're a ATP, I'll give you a big benefit of the doubt, and just say that your answer doesn't make sense from a GA perspective.  Commercial may somehow be different)

I should have qualified that statement in regards to busy airports with lots of traffic. At some major airports ground control will often tell an aircraft to just monitor ground control to reduce radio congestion. The tower will then issue a take off clearance without having the aircraft call. If the aircraft is not ready for some reason they simply decline the clearance

I generally agree with the "don't bother if you see someone on short final" idea: Not a great time to tie up the frequency, and you know you're not going anywhere right now. Letting them know you're ready with say a 172 on a 1 or 2 mile final might get you cleared to line up and wait as soon as the Cessna is on the ground so you can be rolling the second the Cessna clears the hold-short line onto the taxiway. That can get you out ahead of another arrival if everyone's on their game.

In the U.S., it is normal/expected to call the tower as soon as you are #1; even if the runway is occupied.

Just to clarify: when you say "you are #1", it sounds like you're referring to calling final to land. Is that so, or are you talking about departure clearance as well?

@DanHulme you can also be "#1 for departure" when at the hold short line and I think that's what this refers to.

It's also (unfortunately) common for some to call that they're #2 for departure, and Tower usually replies for them to call back when they're #1--unless the current #1 is obviously still off to the side for a runup.

You ask: Is it bad form to call "ready to depart" when you know you won't be cleared yet? Speaking as a controller, my answer is emphatically:
Yes, this is bad form. Do not do it.

When you call ready for departure (and please do say "departure" rather than "takeoff" in all radio calls except reading back "cleared for takeoff" or "cancel takeoff clearance"), I have five options:

Issue a takeoff clearance.
Issue a line-up-and-wait instruction, if LUAW is available to me.
Issue a hold-short instruction.
Respond "Roger."
Ignore you.

If I can't clear you for takeoff because there is an aircraft on short final, I cannot go with option #1 or #2. Then I must choose one of the other three. In order to prevent you from feeling left out, or concerned that I may not have heard you, I should ideally issue a hold-short instruction. This makes it very clear to all involved that you will remain short of the runway (which you were doing before). Unfortunately once I do issue the instruction I now have to make sure you properly read back the full instruction with your correct callsign, and if you don't I'm opening myself up to liability because now it isn't clear that you will remain short of the runway. The same problem exists if I simply respond "Roger," though less so.
So your calling up has not helped me in any way whatsoever. Instead I have to make more radio calls now in addition to the radio call I would have made anyway later once the runway was clear and I could issue the takeoff clearance.

Again, this is predicated on a situation where you see someone on short final and you know that you will not be issued any instruction other than "hold short." If you do a check and do not see anyone on short final, do call—there may be a fast jet on a three-mile final and I can't issue your takeoff, but if you didn't see them I can't hold you responsible for that. Or perhaps you notice them but you think they're still pretty far out and there's a chance I can get you going. Maybe you're correct, maybe not; if I can issue the clearance I will and if I need you to hold short I'll tell you.
But if you look out and see someone on a half-mile final, that is a good time to keep your PTT switch to yourself.

Once you have observed the traffic, I would say a good time to call ready is when they pass off your nose as you're holding short. If the controller is able to use LUAW they can issue that instruction immediately. If not, they can ignore you for the 20-30 seconds it takes to let the arriving aircraft touch down, slow down, and receive runway exit instructions—they're hoping that keeping the frequency busy will prevent you from calling again right away. Then they'll be able to issue the T/O clearance without having to go back-and-forth unnecessarily.

Finally, I would think that you would have completed all of your runup and associated checklists before lining up on the runway. LUAW is supposed to be used in preparation for an "imminent departure" which (our guidance says) means within 90 seconds of you taking the runway—and could be as soon as a second or two after receiving the LUAW instruction, even before you actually reach the runway pavement. I don't know what the standard procedure is at your airport, but if someone was holding in position and called me to say they were ready for departure I would be very confused, because I would have thought that was a given.

"If I can't clear you for takeoff because there is an aircraft on short final, I cannot go with option #1 or #2." You're assuming it's the same runway, but the situation in question is actually where there are parallel grass and hard runways. Parallel take-off and landing on the two runways is forbidden in aerodrome SOP, but there's nothing to stop you LUAW on one while the other is occupied.

Same difference, especially if you were already holding in position. If you know you won't get a takeoff clearance, wait fifteen seconds.

You always notify the tower of your intentions as soon as you are ready, so long as you are not talking over somebody else.

Portland Tower, Cessna Seven Niner Two Mike Hotel, number one at two
  eight Lima, departing to the north west.

Say who you are, where you are and what you want to do (depart, remain in the pattern, etc).

You don't get to say if you are #1, #2, etc.  Tower gets to decide that (even if it seems obvious).  You can only say if you are ready.  (I'd also never call runway 28L "two-eight-Lima"; it should be called "two-eight-Left")

@abelenky I think the Lima is a reference to the taxiway, not the runway.

@SentryRaven it would still be incorrect, you would say "runway 28 AT Lima". Also, assuming by "Portland Tower" he means KPDX, there is 28L and 28R, no Lima taxiway.

@abelenky You have to say your position at the line, otherwise the tower has no idea which one you are. Like if there are 3 Cessnas at the line the tower needs to know which one you are. All they can see from the tower are 3 white Cessnas, they have no idea which one is which unless you tell them. Its important because otherwise they might clear the wrong one for takeoff.


text:
What is it like flying in class B airspace?
I'm a student pilot at a class C airport in the USA. Last weekend I did pattern work. Mostly touch and goes, but it was busy and my approaches were less than perfect so there were some go arounds and some 360s for traffic.
Being in the pattern on a busy day was a little stressful. I was constantly reading things back, changing traffic direction, switching runways R/L, etc.
I am curious to know what it's like flying in class B airspace. Are traffic patterns different from class C? Are there additional skills that pilots must have? For example, I know that I'm not even allowed to be in class B airspace as a student without a class B endorsement.

See: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/751/can-you-fly-a-light-ga-airplane-into-a-major-hub-what-operational-consideration

Well, this is extreme, but you could get a start by giving this a listen: http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=ORD

See this: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/9/i-just-flew-into-class-b-airspace-without-a-clearance-now-what

Are you asking about class B airspace? Or  landing at the primary airport in Class B?

.....just like flying in any other controlled airspace.  Only a little more fast paced and more traffic and ATC communications to deal with.

On my first cross-country as a student (dual), we actually transitioned through the class B airspace just north of us, flew to a smaller airport north of town, did a landing there, followed by flying back to the class B and landing at the primary airport there before returning home.
Basically, I had a few key experiences:

The controllers work quickly and expect you to pay attention.  More than once, as a rather inexperienced pilot, my instructor had to help with the radio, either in understanding the instruction, or helping reduce my confusion by handling communication.
Even on a slower Sunday, the center was training a new controller, so there were times the person training had to step in to clear up some of the radio congestion -- we almost had to turn away from the class B, since they hadn't yet assigned us a beacon and cleared us through the bravo.
We got vectored around pretty quickly... which, basically threw out all our flight planning (we were expecting this to happen anyway).
Talking to approach to land, they told us to expect the visual approach to one of the parallel runways, and the tower controller didn't toss us any curve balls there.  Although, with the headwinds, even with a fair amount of power, we weren't moving very quickly, and probably got cleared to land a bit too early (thankfully, the airspace wasn't busy... but there were a few jets waiting for us to land and taxi off).
Ground control and clearance delivery was combined, and they were pleasant enough to give us progressive taxi without asking (I was expecting to write furiously), and also let us taxi to depart off the intersecting runway.
Departing after cleared and returning home was pretty uneventful.  At this point, I was out of the way for most traffic.  Much more like being under regular flight following.

Granted, it's not like I was flying into ORD -- it was a pretty slow day at an airport that isn't busy much to begin with -- but I have a feeling if you've been used to flying from a Class C airport, not much will feel different for the most part, especially at one of the smaller Class B airports (and for the bigger ones especially -- DEFINITELY get to know the airport diagram beforehand).
To answer some of your specific question, the A/FD will list traffic patterns (probably going to be opposing right/left traffic for parallel runways so people don't end up head on at each other) ;) Controllers will guarantee separation from all aircraft, so you'll be assigned a heading and altitude (maybe "at or below"), and possibly a speed.  So really, if your radio communications are good and you're able to fly straight and level, you won't have many problems (it just comes down to obeying clearances, and not violating any airspace).  You're right that you would need an endorsement to fly solo into a Class B airspace, but this would not apply if you were dual with your instructor, since they are PIC.

Great answer! Very insightful. Thanks for taking the time to write it up

There are several big differences between working around a Class B airport versus a Class C.

Explicit clearance required. Operation in Class C airspace simply requires establishing two-way contact with the airport approach prior to entry. Now, it's good manners either way to request entry or indicate your plans involve entry; while it's legal to transition Charlie space with just a "handshake", it's always better when the controller knows what to expect from you while you're in his airspace, so good radio etiquette typically involves an implicit request to enter (giving the controller the opportunity to have you "remain outside" if he can't deal with you in his airspace right now).
In Class B airspace, that request is not just a good idea, it's required; you must establish contact, state your intentions and be "cleared Bravo" before you can enter. The nature of class B airports is also such that transitioning GA traffic is often turned away, and if you want to land a GA plane, you probably won't be doing it on the main runways. Class Cs only have one or two runways to begin with, so you might find yourself spaced in between commercial jetliners (in which case you stay high and land deep to avoid the wake). A request to T&G your Piper Cherokee on DFW runway 18R (the opposite side of a five-runway complex from the GA hangars) will be given a curt "one-eight right is full go around to one-seven left" unless it's three in the morning and the controllers are just that bored.
Shape of airspace. Class C airspace regions tend to be fairly regular; a 5NM surface cylinder, 10NM 1200' cylinder, and a 700' floor for Class E space underneath in a pattern tailored to the needs of the region. Variations in this pattern are typically increased ceilings through sections of the outer cylinder. Very simple to remember and negotiate.
For Bravo airspace, it's not so simple, primarily because Class B airspace by definition is for the biggest airport in a region that may have grown up with several. Boston Logan's Class B space is pretty regular, because Logan is pretty much the only thing to worry about in the region; I see three Class D fields underneath Logan's outer Bravo layer and that's pretty much it. However, D/FW's Class B space is much more geometrically complex. Its surface footprint encompasses another major airport (Dallas Love Field, technically class C in size/traffic but too close to DFW to be managed separately) and there are 11 fairly busy class Ds in its umbrella, whose controllers and pilots constantly advocate for higher local Bravo floors to allow the airport sufficient control during approach (most flights into and out of somewhere like Addison or Meacham typically end up having to be cleared Bravo anyway, but that requires radio handoffs between one airport's approach and another's tower). LAX's Bravo space isn't even circular, due to the limitations of the urban area, military bases and mountain ranges surrounding the airport. We won't even talk about Washington DC (OK, yes we will; Dulles, Reagan, Baltimore and Andrews AFB all within 50nm of the most heavily defended surface area on the planet; you need a special FAA training course just to fly here).
Radio management and conduct. Class B airports are that way because they're big, and they're busy. Austin-Bergstrom Int'l (AUS), a fairly busy Class C, has approach/departure controllers in the Northeast, Northwest and South directions, plus tower and ground control frequencies. When you come in, you contact approach in your general direction, who vectors you in and hands you off to the tower for final. At LiveATC.net there's only one feed for all these frequencies, and if you're familiar with radio chatter you can easily keep track of everything happening around the airport. The controllers and pilots are also fairly casual and jovial with each other ("United 1234, increase rate of climb", "United 1234 is currently climbing 2600, what works for you?", "Oh, anything better would be good, 1234", "Roger, 1234 pulling vertical").
DFW Int'l has 4 approach "feeders" (one per quadrant), 3 approach "finals" (one per landing runway), two towers each with two frequencies, and three ground control frequencies. Each of these controllers are about as busy, radio-wise, as everybody in Austin, so they don't mess around; they issue quick, curt instructions that can be really hard to catch, and they don't like hearing "say again". While you're talking to DFW approach, you say what you need to say and keep your thumb off the button otherwise.
If you want jovial, fly into Love Field; everyone associated with that airport is all one big happy Southwest family. I just heard the following burble: "Hello Love, Southwest 123 turning base runway one-three", "Southwest 123 welcome home, runway one-three-ra-mmm-left cleared to land", "Aww, you almost said it, 123 runway one-three left cleared in". They have fun.
Traffic size and density. Again, Class B airports are what they are because they handle a lot of really big planes. If I were to try commuting to work by plane from the Mid-Cities over to north of Dallas, I'd have to negotiate DFW's Bravo space (or the class E underneath the northern approach - shudder) while the overnight jumbos from Lufthansa and Emirates were inbound on 18R. That's just not a good time to be puddle-jumping around Bravo space. Around a Charlie airport I'd probably get away with it, as the jets are smaller and fewer and the tower has more time for me.

Wonderful post as well.  Actually, you bring up a good point I didn't learn until I visited the TRACON facility: they use a "standard" traffic flow where there are arrival and departure corridors--arrivals come in on the four corner "posts" and departures go out the middle (between the corners) in all four cardinal directions (this is apparently not uncommon). This helps them expedite traffic flow (nobody going nose to nose), and while they mostly exist for large jet traffic, the controllers may vector you around them to avoid conflict. Just nice knowing that's what the controller is thinking.

Just to add a few observations to the excellent answers already given, particularly if you're aiming to land in Class B with a small GA plane in VFR:

in my experience, you fly no standard traffic pattern, but they'll vector you as they need you and then pretty much straight in.
given the other traffic, I try to go in pretty fast (fast for a C172, that is). The runways are long, so I've been on final with 120+ knots (and yes, that was a no-flap landing!)
as Keith said, be prepared to be handed off from one frequency to the other for quite a bit - be sure to have your pens and kneeboard ready...
taxiing might be more taxing (ta-da) than the flying itself - as Doug said, review the airport diagram, ideally know whether to turn off the runway left or right, know where you want to go for when you talk to Ground (XYZ FBO, transient GA parking, ...), and have the airport diagram handy once you're off the runway.
review the radio sequence for departure, typically they want you to speak to Clearance Delivery before you talk to Ground (just establish 2-way communications, and say location and intentions - they'll probably give you a squawk, then you contact Ground when ready to taxi)

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can climbing above RVSM airspace cause temporary loss of separation with an aircraft in RVSM airspace?
Consider Aircraft A cruising at FL400 and Aircraft B cruising at FL410. Both in close proximity, heading in the same direction. Ignore altitude for direction of flight issue. When aircraft B requests to climb to FL430, would allowing him to do that cause a loss of separation?
I'm not sure if my understanding is correct. In the beginning, both aircraft are in RVSM airspace, have 1000ft vertical separation and are therefor correctly separated. When Aircraft B climbs above FL410, they enter non-RVSM airspace, requiring 2000ft. vertical separation and therefor loosing separation. When Aircraft B is between FL410 and FL420, there is less than 2000ft of separation between them (Aircraft B being in non-RVSM airspace).
It seems really counterintuitive that increasing vertical separation between two aircraft can cause a loss of separation.
I'd love to know the answer to this question for both ICAO and FAA land with 4444 and 7110.65 citations if anyone knows them.
Thanks!

Not sure about this but above certain altitude some equipment may not work accurately as certified. Hence the need for increase separation.

A very good question, although somewhat theoretical, since IRL two aircraft are not flown on top of each other for extended periods of time for safety reasons, even if the vertical separation minimas are met.

Aircraft B would only be given that clearance to climb if doing so maintains separation. See §7110.65 chapter 5

@dawg That's obvious, but the question is whether separation (as outlined in 4-5-1) is maintained in this specific, peculiar scenario. This is purely a theoretical question.

You say it is obvious but think about it this way: The controlling authority for maintaining separation for RVSM airspace is ATC. If there was a loss of separation (assuming the pilot followed instructions within tolerance) that is an ATC issue. Assume something more extreme: Aircraft B is vectored directly into the path of aircraft A at the same altitude. There would be a 'loss of separation' immediately before the event...

@dawg I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'd like to find the answer to this question from the perspective of the Air Traffic Controller (which is why I mentioned Doc 4444 and JO 7110.65). I am asking whether it is legal for a controller to issue this climb.

I think the way rules regarding RVSM are worded in ICAO documents leaves some room for interpretation. When RVSM was implemented, it was probably not very common for aircraft to be able to climb above FL400, so this specific problem was probably not considered when writing the rules. But I would say, when in doubt, use the more conservative interpretaion, which would be that: Yes, this would be a loss of separation.
It sounds weird that increasing the distance between two aircraft can cause a loss of separation, but RVSM airspace is not actually the only place where this can happen. I can think of a few other examples:

Two aircraft flying on parallel tracks with exactly 3 NM between. They are flying parallel to an airspace border. On one side of the border, the required separation is 3 NM, on the other side, the required separation is 5 NM (this is quite a common setup, actually). Imagine one of them is flying almost directly on the airspace border. If this aircraft now turns slightly away from the other one, increasing the distance between the two, it crosses the border into the airspace where 5 NM of separation is required. That's a loss of separation.

Losing lateral separation when no other separation exist. For example, imagine a visual reporting point 1.5 NM from the runway. In the local rules, it is defined that VFR traffic orbiting overhead this reporting point are separated from aircraft taking off and landing. When an aircraft takes off whild a VFR flight is orbiting over this point, that's all well and good. By definition, they are separation. But if the VFR flight now leaves the reporting point, separation may be lost - even if the VFR flight takes a heading directly away from the other aircraft, so the physical distance is increasing. As the VFR flight leveas the reporting point, the rule about lateral separation no longer applies, so if the flights are closer than the prescribed radar minima, that's a loss of separation.

Two aircraft taking off after each other. Initially, the tower controller can visually see both aircraft and ensure separation. When the controller can see both aircraft, normal minima do not apply - it is up to the controller to visually make sure there is no risk of collision. Now imagine the first aircraft climbs into a cloud, so the controller can no longer see it. Even if the higher aircraft is climbing faster than the lower one, so physical separation is increasing, if the required vertical separation does not exist when the controller loses visual contact with the first aircraft, that's a loss of separation.

Two aircraft flying on opposite, parallel tracks. The required radar separation is 3 NM for aircraft flying less than 250 knots, and 5 NM for aircraft flying faster than that. Both flying at 250 knots, they pass each other with exactly 3 NM in between, and are now flying away from each other. One aircraft now accelerates to 251 knots, while there is still less than 5 NM between them. Although they are rapidly moving away from each other, that would be a loss of separation.

These are all real examples that, although they shouldn't happen, could result in a loss of separation between two aircraft that were initially separated, while distance between them actually increases. I think the key point here is the fact that in each example, the rules regarding separation minima change, which is what causes the loss. A rule that allowed the aircraft to be relatively close together, for one reason or another, no longer applies, and so we have to fall back to another rule, which may require larger minima.
While this may not specifically answer your question regarding RVSM, I think the exact same logic can be applied. In your example, initially, one rule applies: RVSM, which allows 1000 ft vertical separation. As aircraft B leaves RVSM airspace, the RVSM rule no longer applies, so we have to fall back to the general rules for vertical separation, which says we need 2000 ft. Thus, your example would indeed be a loss of separation.

If the controller is following FLAS - Flight Level Allocation Scheme, which permits the level, then there's no "loss of separation". FLAS typically takes the form of a diagram or table of the FL's that are allowed in a certain FIR or airspace and also the restrictions on direction, and sometimes further restrictions such as timings or Metric level values etc. It lays down exactly which levels are allowed, in which direction etc. rather than using only a description or formula such as "2000 ft separation". You can check your FL in the table, see what it says, and plan or base your tactical request accordingly.
Here's an example from the UK Flight Planning Guide, CAP 694.

OTS above refers to the Organized Track System in special airspace NAT HLA (earlier MNPSA), ie crossing the Atlantic.
Note also that FL430 is 'traditionally' an eastbound level, but as you can see, this has been modified under FLAS
Here's another 'circular' from the AFI (Africa/ Indian Ocean) area that is quite well aligned with the question we're trying to answer.

CIRCULAR 16-2014

RVSM FLIGHT LEVEL ALLOCATION SCHEME (FLAS) FL290 TO FL410 AND THE ALLOCATION OF FL420

The application of the RVSM FLAS in AFI is restricted to FL290 – FL410 inclusive for all eligible aircraft.

The application of RVSM is adequately documented in ICAO Document 9574, Manual on Vertical Separation Minimum between FL 290 and FL 410 Inclusive.

It has been observed, during the scrutiny of Air Traffic Flow Data, that FL420 is being allocated.

It should be recalled that the application of 1000FT vertical separation above FL290 is only applicable between FL290 and FL410 inclusive. The next available flight level above FL410 is FL430 and not FL420. 2000FT vertical separation is applicable above FL410 due to altimetry system inaccuracies.

In the event that two aircraft cross each other, one at FL410 and the other at FL420, a reduction in vertical separation is deemed to have occurred. This event will thus pose a risk to RVSM and en- route safety.

Air Navigation Service Providers and Aircraft Operators must ensure that FL420 is not allocated or utilised.

Further to this the allocation and use of FL420 should be immediately brought to the attention of ARMA for discussion with the relevant parties.

RVSM and en-route safety is of paramount importance.

END

This is also the end of my answer, but I'm leaving in place the previous write up which is quite accurate except that it did not answer the question asked as I misunderstood the question. I regret the error. (The moderator may feel quite free to remove the portion below the dashed line.)

Apart from the vertical (flight-level), the required separation can also be taken care of in the lateral (cross-track to the left or right), and longitudinal (along-track, going relatively faster or slower, to achieve the needful) and ATC uses these to ensure separation before clearing the climb within, or through RSVM airspace. Depending on the type of facilities/airspace, ATC may use Radar Control or Procedural Control (position reports) to achieve this.
At no time would ATC compromise separation or have 'doubtful' separation. RVSM based separation would be applied to RVSM capable aircraft, and non-RVSM separation between any non-RVSM aircraft (or one that has become incapable of meeting RVSM requirements)
If, as in the example the two are close proximity same direction traffic such clearance will not be given except as described above.
If the request is made in good time, or planned ahead (even in the filed plan), it is more likely that you will get the level without undue delay. Though RVSM was introduced to accommodate more traffic, nevertheless,  every possible airway/airspace slot is not necessarily occupied and ATC generally try and make the most efficient use of the airspace so as to accommodate flights as planned, as well as accommodate tactical real time requests. Fuel saving is the usual benefit and reducing the aviation's carbon footprint is in everyones interest so there is no prohibition on requesting climbs.
Such clearances to climb or descend may typically have a restriction reach the cleared level "by time HHmm", or "best ROC/minimum Vertical Spd XXXXfpm" or AT a WPT or crossing a Longitude or at a distance X nm from some reference point and once accepted it is the crew's responsibility to ensure compliance of the instructions.
(will try and include suitable references soon, meanwhile @dawg has given a link above)

All good points, but you seem to fail to answer the actual question: If two aircraft at roughly the same position, following same route/speed, one at FL400 and the other at FL410, would letting the one at FL410 climb to FL430 result in a loss of separation during the climb?

The question is about a situation where the only form of separation available is vertical separation. Try reading OP's example again, it is pretty clear

OK, I get the point, Flight Level planning/availability in many airspaces, is published as a FLAS - Flight Level Allocation Scheme. This takes the form of a table or diagram of values (numbers) rather than a set of formulae. If the FLAS allows FL430 then it's legal. It's like the International Std Atmosphere is actually defined by a table of values rather than rules like "Lapse Rate = 15degC at SL minus 1.98degC per 1000ft altitude"

I still think you are missing the point. The question is not about whether FL400 and FL430 are separated (which they obviously are), but about whether an aircraft in the climb phase from FL410 to FL430 would be separated from an aircraft at FL400. Since, during the climb, there would be less than 2000 FT of separation, and the climbing aircraft would be outside RVSM airspace.

What about FL450 and above according to FLAS? Can’t you use it?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
In the event of a crash over thick snow or a forest, would it be safer inside the aircraft or free-falling?
I just saw this question about humans surviving terminal velocity free-falls, sometimes even with little injury depending on the surface conditions, particularly over forests, hills, or thick snow cover.
That made me wonder, if a passenger of:

a large commercial aircraft, perhaps a Boeing 737
crashing from 5000 meters or higher
above a large forest or thick snow

had the choice between free falling and buckling up to crash with the aircraft, which option would offer him the greatest chance of surviving?
I'm thinking the plane might offer lower falling speed, and physical protection, but also pose the dangers of giant engines, explosions, and crushed metal / shrapnel. Perhaps the answer is that over a forest, the free fall could be safer, and over snow the plane could be safer, but that's pure speculation on my part.

and the plane is engineered to slow down the stop at the end of the fall for extra survival odds for the pax.

The only way I would even consider jumping out of a plane would be if I had a parachute! Seriously, just because fate smiled on some people does not mean that you should tempt it!

@MatthewPeters and even with a parachute I'd be loath to jump unless I had at least some prior training in its use.

@jwenting, I hate quoting movies but... "yeah well, I've never been with two girls before, but you bet when that day comes, I'll make it work"

Statistically, there has got to be graphs you can combine to show the number of airplane crashes to fatalities and a graph with skydives (without a chute/malfunctions) to fatalities. I'd venture to say that the odds are far greater to surviving an airplane crash than a freefall.
Let's look at the factors...
A freefall:

your velocity in not slowed by anything
your body is not protected by anything
you have no control on where to 'crash'

A crash landing:

passengers are slowed greatly by the aircraft
passengers are greatly protected physically (airframes are designed to minimize risks from explosions, shrapnel, and crash G's)
there is a greater chance the aircraft can be controlled somewhat to crash in the best place.

The only time it would be better to jump without a parachute is if you are this guy or the aircraft is about to be torn apart.

Let's add to that the fact that the aircraft has an emergency locator beacon, and that any rescue crews are going to be looking for survivors at the crash site. Assuming you survive your leap of faith (and that's a big assumption) you could well die of exposure before rescuers find you.

in freefall your velocity is slowed by the air around you. If it wasn't, you'd not stop accellerating on reaching terminal velocity :)

If the aircraft is torn apart at cruise level you will be die from barotrauma before you reach the ground anyway. This guy survived aircraft in-flight break-up only because in that plane they wear space-suits.

You tube returns ""Travis Pastrana Skydiv..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Nitro Circus." for the "this guy" link above.

@JanHudec: That wasn't barotrauma, that was windblast.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What does "Request Boxing Vectors" means?
I have heard on a request from a pilot: "- Request boxing vectors!"
What's the meaning of this non standard phraseology?

Where did you hear this? Perhaps "boxing" is the name of a waypoint or airport?

It was not, I heard on a transmission from one aircraft in emergency, after aborting the approach, to read the checklist, in order to troubleshoot the landing gear issue.

Please tell us where/when you heard this, phraseology is pretty standard, but in an emergency things can get local... The pilot may have been requesting a "block", which is a range of altitudes reserved for that aircraft...

The sentence was: "- Yeah, affirmative, I just need BOXING VECTORS to run a checklist for a gear scenario."

Please, please tell us where this took place, and possibly when, it's important information to answer the question!

This situation happened during the approach to land at Philadelphia (KPHL), the pilot was unable to lower the landing gear, they abandoned the approach, and requested this vector (BOXING VECTORS), on Apr 9th 2020.

Please feel free to edit your question to incorporate the information you have provided in the comments

In the military when flying multiple instrument approaches to the same runway for currency or training we would be vectored in a rectangular "box" pattern by ATC.
For example, on the initial communication when asked how the approach will terminate, our response might be: "request the option, radar vectors box pattern, multiple ILS approaches."
We would then do our work in an IFR pattern much like one would do multiple touch and goes in a VFR tower pattern.  It was just an expanded version, with the radar controller calling our turns for each leg.
It is likely that the pilot intended to be boxed around for another approach, figuring that they would probably have enough time on the downwind leg to troubleshoot the problem.

Boxing vectors is not a standard term. I can't tell you exactly what was going through the mind of the pilot (you would have to ask them directly), but based on your description, my interpretation would be that the pilot was requesting delaying vectors to give them time to work checklists. It is pretty common in an emergency situation where the pilots need time to evaluate the situation and plan their actions to request either a holding pattern or vectors around the airport. Boxing vectors could refer to the pilot wanting to be put "in a box" of airspace and left there until they had had time to figure out the gear issue. That would be my guess if a pilot requested boxing vectors on the frequency (although I would ask them for clarification of course).
In an emergency situation, the pilots don't really care where they are going (as long as they stay relatively close to the airport) so it makes sense to let it be up to ATC to decide. ATC then has the opportunity to move the flight to a quiet piece of airspace where they are not in the way for other traffic and let them run the checklists. It's a way for the pilots to reduce mental workload, as all they have to do it punch in a new heading every few minutes, instead of calculating and setting up an holding pattern in the navigation computer.

Correct, and "box" is a common US term for this. One detail you didn't mention is that the boxing will be run by one controller so the pilots don't need to change frequencies, whether entirely within one sector or coordinated behind the scenes.


text:
Are declared distances absolute or just for reference?
I spent a few hours checking some threads and articles on the topic in question and I would like confirmation from you: according to the AIM FAA manuals which state:

4-3-6(c)(2)(c) When considering the amount of runway available for use in takeoff or landing performance calculations, the declared distances published for a runway must always be used in lieu of the runway's physical length;

4-3-6(c)(2)(d) An aircraft is not prohibited from operating beyond a declared distance limit during the takeoff, landing, or taxi operation provided the runway surface is appropriately marked as usable runway";

I would easily reckon that if ATC gives the pilot the clearance to line up and wait with backtrack from a certain holding point, then the pilot can at any time choose a shorter distance for takeoff; this is done thanks to his assessment on the runway, lining up on a different point, resulting in a take-off from a non-declared distance (shorter than any intermediate holding point/position)
i.e.
-TORA 2000m (published)
-intermediate takeoff 1800m (published)
-actual length for takeoff being 1700m (not published)
A c150 for example could ask to line up and take off from a position that's some hundreds meters/feet beyond the starting point (reducing the TORA) thanks to its performances...
So the question is 'are published distances such as TORA meant to be used in full or just a reference for pilots to make the assessment on the sufficient distance for take-offs?'
I am in Europe and our legislation follows the dictates of EASA, but I welcome your advice and observations deriving from the FAA regulations

Check my new answer thanks

You can edit your question to include new information, which is where the info in your answer should go. I moved it there and included the question in the title. If you prefer something else, you can roll it back or modify it further.

Much appreciated

Welcome to Aviation Stack Exchange.
The pilot has the option to use an intersection takeoff versus using the full length available for takeoff provided there is enough runway available from that taxiway to the end of its declared distance.  Declared distances are the runway declared available and suitable from the start of the runway to the end of the distance.
The use of declared distances from the FAA are mandatory but seldom used.  The reason is due to most corporate pilots taking the runway length from Jeppesen charts but those "usable lengths" values are not declared distances but a Jeppesen derived number.  I can prove that Jeppesen is incorrect at least once out of every seven runways for U.S. airports.
Does Jeppesen display runway declared distances on their charts?
Declared distances are used in the preflight planning phase.  Pilots are not allowed to takeoff with a weight that will cause their accelerate-go distance to be greater than the listed TORA or TODA value.  They also cannot takeoff if the accelerate-stop distance is greater than the ASDA value.  The actual landing distance calculation cannot be greater than the LDA value.
Once the pilots am in the airplane, they can use the full length of the runway to stop.  If they did the preflight planning correctly using correct declared distances, they will be afforded standard airport safety design features to keep themselves, their passengers, other people and property and their airplane safe.  If they didn't follow the declared distances for the runway, they will lose those airport safety design features.
Here is a post I wrote discussing airport design safety standards and how declared distances are calculated.
How do pilots use stopway, EMAS, clearway and displaced threshold?

Thanks for the clarification... I am just referring to the simple situation where the pilot is authorized to line up and wait reporting the ability to take off beyond any declared distances, thus requesting a clearance for takeoff... Does it ever happen that the ATC approves such request under the pilot's discretion and responsibility?

For example the pilot requesting to use 2/3 of the rwy taking off far from the published starting point (Tora) since his aircraft performances allows it (i.e. a small piper or cessna)

@giggi10, a controller does not approve/deny a clearance based on aircraft performance. The published values are distances, measured from a starting point. That doesn’t imply you must use that starting point. Furthermore, theses declared distances only matter if you are operating under rules/policies that require you follow them.

Thanks indeed @Timbo


text:
What is typical ATC procedure when a non-pilot calls from a commercial flight for help?
"This is ShinyWings 123, I'm not a pilot, the pilot and copilot are unconscious. Help."
Probably a day air traffic controllers dream of with dread, when a member of cabin crew, or even worse, a passenger, calls for help with an incapacitated pilot(s) and a plane full of souls still unaware of the situation.
I'd imagine given the incredible amount of training and experience put into air traffic controllers, this is a situation they prepare for, and have a standard operating procedure prewritten and pre-taught specifically for. What is that procedure?
To keep the question from being overly broad, I'll restrict this to (1) ICAO standard procedures, if one exists for this situation and (2) procedures within the United States and European Union.

It's also an incredibly rare situation, when compared to other emergencies. I wouldn't be surprised if there are no standard procedures at all. I'm not aware of any, but I'm not an air traffic controller. But I'd guess they spend their abnormal situation training on more common scenarios like fuel emergencies, weather, NORDO, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqPvVxxIDr0 for an actual event where this happened

This is exceedingly rare.  There has never been a case of a non-pilot passenger landing a commercial jet with ATC direction.  Even in small GA planes this is exceptionally uncommon.  It just doesn't happen except in peoples' daydreams.  You might as well wonder what the procedure is when a tour group ends up being the only people left to stop a nuclear power plant meltdown after all the engineers suddenly collapse and die.

@J... or the third shift ends up being the only people left to stop a nuclear power plant meltdown after the second shift goes home and the manager HAS to run a test...

I seem to mention this over and over on this list when this (remarkably popular!) topic comes up, but there's a fantastic book Hypnotizing Maria by aviation writer Richard Bach ... the first passage of the book presents a (fictional) such event.  (Note that the final 3/4 of the book is a whole lot of "New Age" stuff, as is Mr. Bach's bent!  But any pilot would love the first part.) Enjoy

@user1936752 GREAT video!

Why would a passenger be worse than a crew member? Maybe you find an ex-fighter pilot among the passengers, like in this case: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/

@user1936752 That guy was a private pilot. He just wasn't rated for the King Air.

I'm only aware of two cases off-hand where a passenger ever helped fly a jet airliner and, in both cases, the passenger in question was a pilot (in one of the cases, a B-1 Lancer supersonic bomber pilot) and in both cases the passenger worked the radios, read checklists, and did other such right-seat-guy tasks while one of the original flight crew flew the plane after the other flight crew member fell ill. The closest thing I can thing of where both flight crew members became incapacitated was Helios 522, which crashed after both pilots were incapacitated by hypoxia due to depressurization.

@reirab And on Helios 522, one of the flight attendants was also a pilot but couldn’t get into the cockpit before the plane ran out of fuel.

@StephenS Ah, yeah, I remembered that the FA was seen trying to get back control of the aircraft, but I had forgotten that he was actually a pilot with a CPL (though not ATP and not typed on the 737.)

There is absolutely nothing "typical" about such a situation, which is also why - as is the case for most abnormal situations and emergencies - there are no detailed and specific standard procedures for dealing with it.
Many ATC units around the world have adopted the general "ASSIST" checklist to deal with abnormal situations. This would likely also be the starting point for handling a situation like the one you describe:

Acknowledge: Let the person making the call know that you understand the situation
Separate: Provide extra separation to other traffic around the aircraft in question
Silence: Stop all unnecessary talk on the radio, switch other aircraft to another frequency, to ensure a good line of communication
Inform: Alert colleagues, supervisors, rescue personnel, the airline/flying club, other aircraft in the area etc. as appropriate. Get more people working on coming up with a solution.
Support: Help the passenger/cabin crew in any way possible. Maybe the controller has flying experience, maybe someone who was contacted in the previous step does and can step in and help guide the passenger/cabin crew.
Time: Try to estimate the possible timeline. Is the aircraft literally falling out of the sky, or is it flying along steadily on autopilot? How much fuel is left? Don't force anyone to make rash decisions if not necessary. Time produces good decisions.

But, again, there is no standard procedure, since such a situation could present itself in countless different ways. There are simply too many variables to come up with a "one size fits all" solution beforehand. Controllers are trained to remain calm under pressure, make good choices and adapt to an ever changing environment. The day we have a set checklist for every single possible emergency situation is the day we can safely retire and let computers take over our jobs.
Further reading on SKYbrary:
Crew Incapacitation: Guidance for Controllers
Guidelines for Dealing with Unusual/Emergency Situations in ATC

"The day we have a set checklist for every single possible emergency situation is the day we can safely retire and let computers take over our jobs." Very true! But then what would they do to develop ulcers and nervous ticks? :D

@FreeMan once you're done making airplane traffic secure, you could shift your attention to trains. I won't say which country it is, but let's say that many tracks in the one I'm thinking about go by "here's the schedule; follow it, or ram into another train"

@JohnDvorak that's interesting given that a lot of what we know about safe ways of operating was developed on railways; railway history is a  very useful tool for understanding how things can go wrong

@JohnDvorak That does, at least, provide strong incentive for the train in front of you to stay on schedule. :)


text:
Which small, light aircraft are suitable for operating at very high elevations?
I live in Jammu and Kashmir, in an area with an average elevation of 4,500m / 14,700ft MSL . I would like to know what would be a good and cheap light aircraft to carry 3-4 people for a 3-4 hour flight in that location for heights upto 23000ft as mountains are at least this high?
Runway length is 3700ft and asphalt.
Budget is aroung $1 million to 1.5 preowned

Welcome to aviation.SE! Can you tell us where you are? 4500m is over 14,000ft, which is very high indeed. We usually don't answer 'shopping' questions on this site because they're very subjective and a lot depends on your personal situation. But if you focus on performance and other objective measures you might get a useful answer.

@Pondlife edited questions with details

I reworded your question a little, I hope I identified your location correctly but if not you can simply edit again

First of all, from many if not most people's standpoint, there is no such aircraft that qualifies as "cheap" (though I'm guessing in my American English you perhaps meant "inexpensive" because "good" and "cheap" don't really go to together), but that's a relative judgment; you may be wealthy. Next, to provide an intelligent opinion, one would need to know the runway lengths and surfaces you want to operate out of. Also, I'm guessing that avgas in your area might not be readily available. If so, you might want to limit your consideration to aircraft that can use Jet-A.

@Terry lenght = 1,125 meter surface Asphalt

What is your purchade budget?  What is your annual operating budget?  Is 100LL fuel readily available?

@murmansk Consider posting another question something like: "Is there a single-engine aircraft that can operate out of a 3,700 foot long runway at an elevation of xxxxx feet and climb to yyyyy feet with 4 adults aboard?" Replace xxxxx and yyyyy with appropriate values. I suggest using feet rather than meters because there are many here that might have good offhand info (i.e. the U.S. pilot population), but are not used to operating in meters and might not be inclined to take the time to convert.

You might want to check Indian regulations, too. In the US at 14,700 MSL you would be required to be pressurized or on supplemental oxygen. At 15,000 your passengers would need oxygen too if not pressurized.

None of this will be cheap.

Your Google Maps link doesn't point to any part of Jammu and Kashmir; it points to northern Himachal Pradesh.

@Sean someone edited it not me

Yeah that location is going to present you with a lot of problems, most notably with density altitude and mountain flying.  This is also going to depend on the airports and runway lengths available as well as obstacle clearance altitudes for the area in question.  Most likely it's going to be a turbine powered aircraft which is pressurized for comfort and features good Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) characteristics and soft field operations.
This question will probably be put on hold shortly, primarily because it is opinion based, but I would recommend a Quest Kodiak or a Pilatus PC-6 for the role due to meeting most of that criteria minus being non-pressurized.  You would just need to provide supplemental oxygen for the crew and passengers during the flight.  Another aircraft which would be recommended is a Pilatus PC-12 or the soon to be released Cessna Denali as they meet all of these needs albeit is a bit larger and less capable as a STOL aircraft.

The Maule might also work. http://www.mauleflight.com/faq/M7-260C.html

You would have to, at the least, have a turbocharged engine for operations at those altitudes.

I was going to suggest a PC-12 as well but that's on the high end of your budget at best.


text:
Why is the cross-sectional shape of some airliners' nose not perfectly a circle?
I found that the cross-sectional shape of some jet airliners' nose is not perfectly a circle. For example the Boeing 737 aircraft:

(source: aeroprints.com via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)
Look at the frame (below cockpit window) that draws the nose cross sectional shape of the B737, it is not perfectly a circle, but a little rectangular shape.
While on the A320, the nose cross-sectional shape is nearly a perfect circle.
What is the difference between these two? Does it have to do with the instruments built in the nose? Which design creates less drag? How does the change in nose cross-sectional shape affect the aerodynamic properties?
(plus the B737 nose is more pointy than the A320's, the A320 and almost all Airbus planes have a blunt nose compared to Boeing aircraft)

Related: Why do Boeing and Airbus have distinctively different nose designs?

Also related: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53018/why-until-recently-were-smooth-nose-sections-not-popular

Not a complete answer, but note that the 737 design dates back to the mid-60s, and that the nose and fuselage are derived from 707 from the 50s, which had flat panes for the flight deck windows. Curved windshields aerodynamically shaped to follow the curves of the nose, and could withstand jetliner speeds (and jetliner hail/bird strikes), didn't come until later.

Does this answer your question? Why do Boeing and Airbus have distinctively different nose designs?

Two reasons…  One, airliner fuselages are not usually circular, and actually not a smooth oval.  They tend to be a compound vertically-elongated oblong shape.  Most Boeings, for instance, tend to be the compounding of two radii, one for the bottom half and one for the top half.
But the top of the nose have to also be “flattened” down to where the windshields start.  Modern transport and military aircraft, like cars, have windshields that don’t simply follow the contour of the body, but are more “vertical”, effectively “cutting into” what would otherwise be a smooth line from nosed to roof.
So the nose cone shape is a vertical oval, that is then flattened across the top to create a place for the windshield, unlike something like the nose of a B-29 bomber.

In addition to the above answers or to simplify you'd want a pointy nose so that you can easily and smoothly cut through the on coming air because air itself has mass. Thus, reduces drag. Another thing is that having such a shape at the nose also helps to streamline the Radome since it's surface structure and the shape plays a vital role in terms of optimizing its performance.
It must be understood that static electricity has the tendency to concentrate at points that have the greatest curvature. Thus, having certain points on the aircraft that fits this description such as the wings and nose tip helps to install statics wicks at or near those locations instead of having a dozen of those every where on the aircraft.

What a confusion: "a pointy nose can easily and smoothly cut through the on coming air" this is true at supersonic speeds, not at the subsonic speeds typical of a jetliner where the tail should be pointy... "static electricity has the tendency to concentrate at points that have the greatest curvature" the smallest curvature you mean, that's why static discharges are niddle-like...

Neither at subsonic nor at supersonic speeds you'd still need have a pointy nose or have it tapped to create such a curvature shape in order to reduce drag which will be caused by the relative air. Why i stated having such points or places where the curvature is the greatest helps to place static wicks at or near those points where the negative charges tend to concentrate than installing it at various places where the degree of curvature is smaller.  Yes, the virtual fin is a directional component that aids the plane to stay firm as it flies through the air.

At supersonic speed you do need a pointy nose to get an oblique shock wave attached to the nose. Unless the aircraft is a reentry vehicle and then a detached shock wave is better to slow it down: in that case the forward part of the vehicle should be curved. At subsonic speeds the back of the aircraft is much more important than the nose to reduce drag.

@sophit Maybe the wording is not to your liking, but Ludwig has a point: At transsonic speed a blunt nose has to become less blunt (while still not pointy) to avoid supersonic areas in the flow. Boeing designed the nose of the 707 (which is from where the 737 inherited its) with that in mind. I think a downvote is too harsh to express your disagreement. Maybe you should write a better answer instead.

@sophit Sorry for wrongly suspecting you. My apologies!

@PeterKämpf: I normally first post a comment and eventually a downvote afterward, so it wasn't me. I perfectly know that transonic is "somewhere in-between" subsonic and supersonic, I've just taken those two for ease of use. Anyway the sentence "a pointy nose can easily and smoothly cut through the on coming air" is not formally correct if not at supersonic speeds. Plus the sentence regarding static electricity concentrating where the curvature is bigger is plain wrong...

@PeterKämpf: no worries! Plus, you have already written a much better answer

Sorry i had to delete my previous comment and take a moment to quantify what's being said. You guys could be on the dot. Yes these terms have very different meanings. I'm sorry to ask but I have to if you don't mind, can you explain the reason as to why such nose configurations are chosen at least from a structural design point of view. I see that the radome has no stringers and it's shape is somewhat dictated by the size of the forward bulkhead.

@LudwigT: no problem, we're all here to learn something new. A radome has normally no structural properties (if not to sustain itself). It is not made of metal since it covers and protect the weather radar so it has to be transparent at the electromagnetic waves at which the radar works. This answer gives a very nice point of view related to this topic.

Maybe this answer and this answer will help to answer your question about nose shapes.


text:
Where to start learning how to fly and build flight hours?
High school student here. I really want to be a commercial pilot since I was a kid. I really don’t know where to start learning, either cadet pilot school (funded and organized by the airline), a flying school with a flight instructor, or the Air Force. Any recommendations? Experiences? Advice as to how I can start or what I can do as of now?

Try everything, starting with whatever won't cost you anything first.  Apply to the Air Force. Join AF junior ROTC.  Make yourself into one their ideal candidates.  Apply to cadet programs. For any of that stuff you will need to be a top tier student with potential leadership qualities, so put in the work.  Only if none of that works go to Plan B, where you pay your own way. The pay your own way route is a longer and harder slog.

Welcome to aviation.SE! This is a great question but unfortunately not a very good fit for this site. There are so many variables that depend on your personal situation (and which country you're in) and it's difficult to give one really good answer. You might get a better response on a discussion forum for pilots. Having said that, we do have a number of questions about careers in aviation that might help. If you're new to the site, the [tour] might be useful to understand how it works.

What country are you in?  In the US, if you have the money it's as simple as going down to your local FBO.  Joining the USAF is probably not a good route: out of ~320K personnel, only about 12K are pilots.  The rest maintain the planes and do other stuff.

Hi mav_04, this question isn't a good fit for the site but I sincerely hope you succeed, and I look forward to answering future aviation questions from you as you set out on your training.


text:
Does the FAA regulate FBOs?
One of our local airfields is a small D class, towered during the day, probably kept running at this status mostly because of historical/charity reasons. It gets 2 or 3 commercial flights a day and a moderate amount of General Aviation local traffic.
We have just one Fixed Base Operator (FBO) there.
My instrument instructor recently had a payment misunderstanding with the FBO over some hangar time. He paid what they asked, but wasn’t happy about it. Because his displeasure was expressed (and probably because of some past disagreements as well) the FBO's owner informed the instructor that he wasn’t welcome there anymore and neither were any of his students.
There’s always two sides to every story and this doesn’t inconvenience me right now, so I’m not looking for any advice on the actual situation itself.
What this situation made me curious about though, is what rules (if any) govern FBOs? Are they just “normal” businesses? They have an interesting relationship where they have a quasi granted monopoly to serve the public. I assume that if I tried to open an FBO, that I would be influenced, at least partially, by both FAA and the local port authority.

I think this would be better on Law.SE. Really it boils down to the FBO being a business like any other, and having the right to refuse service (at least refuse based on non-protected statuses unlike race).

So are you basically saying they’re just normal businesses and governed the same way any other service business, like say an auto mechanic are?

Yes, they really don't even have a "monopoly", there are quite a few airports that have multiple FBO's on the same field.

Does being asked to leave the FBO equate to being asked to not use the airport at all? There are literally thousands of airports (in the US). The instructor could be home based elsewhere, perhaps a few miles distant, and still use the airport, yes?

You can read an FAA Q&A from 2017 that gives some information about how FBOs are regulated at airports that receive Federal money. The key point seems to be that the "airport sponsor" set conditions for FBOs and other businesses at the airport, and the FAA is mostly concerned with making sure that the sponsor meets their Federal obligations.
This may be the most direct answer to your question:

The FAA does not directly regulate the FBO industry at Federally
obligated airports, except for some limited aspects of these
operations that are subject to FAA safety regulations. Nor does the
FAA approve airport leases with FBOs or regulate FBO market entry or
exit conditions, investment or business models, cost-based rates, net
operating revenues, adequate rates of return, mergers, and rates and
charges schedules. However, if requested or if part of a complaint or
compliance review, the FAA may review FBO leases or agreements to
determine if they are consistent with the airport sponsor’s Federal
obligations.

And this, on your comment about monopolies:

An airport sponsor is prohibited from granting an exclusive right for
the use of the airport. Nor may an airport sponsor grant a special
privilege to anyone providing aeronautical services on the airport or
engaging in an aeronautical use. The intent of these restrictions is
to promote aeronautical activity and protect fair competition at
Federally obligated airports.
The existence of a
single FBO at an airport does not necessarily mean the airport sponsor
has granted an exclusive right or that an illegal monopoly exists. The
FAA recognizes there are many reasons why there might only be a single
FBO at an airport, including space limitations and the realities of
market demand. Additionally, the airport sponsor has the right to
establish itself as the sole FBO provider (Proprietary Exclusive
Right) using its own employees.

(Re FBOs):

They have an interesting relationship where they have a quasi granted
monopoly to serve the public. I assume that if I tried to open an FBO,
that I would be influenced—at least partially—by both FAA and the
local port authority.

This is true in some cases, at least in regards to local municipal or state authority.  Local authorities often develop a "master plan" for an airport, which may grant some form of preference or exclusivity to a particular FBO, at least by virtue of the fact that there simply may not be room for multiple FBOs in the space allotted for such operations in the master plan.
Google for example "Jabara airport FBO dispute" --you'll find some content of interest, such as this article.
As to one of your other questions--

Does the FAA regulate FBOs?

Certainly there are FAA regulations pertaining to businesses offering flight instruction, maintenance services, etc.  None of these FAA regulations would specifically restrict the number of business which may offer such services at any given airport, nor do any of these FAA regulations force an FBO to offer services to any given customer.

Re the first link, it appears that the issue is not that one FBO had an exclusive agreement per se, but rather that they felt a potential second FBO was being allowed to circumvent the usual channels in their planned move/expansion -- it's complicated; the basic point is that you can't just roll up to an airport and stake out some vacant land and start building your FBO, so in practice there may be essentially a monopoly, even if not explicitly recognized as such --


text:
What front is going to form after a cold air mass meets a warm air mass?
What front is going to form after a cold air mass meets a warm air mass -- I think it will form a cold front or an occluded front, but I'm not sure.
Today I learned that different fronts gives different weather conditions for flights and I saw the question that I asked and I thought that it will form a cold front because the moving cold mass will collide with the warmer one and it will force the warmer mass to go up. However, I also learned that a cold air mass is moving faster than a warmer one and in the definition of an occluded front it says that the cold one will overtake the warm mass.
Will it form a cold front or an occluded front, or does it depend in what direction the masses are moving?

@ymb1 presumably not in the US then, but in many other countries meteorology forms part of the pilot licence training. EASA and others have a whole exam dedicated solely on meteorology, and questions like this are extremely typical. So for any pilot outside the US this question is very much relevant to aviation.

Absolutely agree with Ben here, meteorology is an important part of aviation and this type of question should be considered on topic.

@ymb1 apologies, I misread the close reason. Thank you for reaching out Grey and suggesting how they can improve their answer, and making the final edit.  I do have an issue with the moderator intervention here, but I'll address that through Meta

Important to note, with weather, warm and cold air rarely move in the same direction or opposite.  Cold air generally moves from the north or west and warm air from the south.  When they "occlude", wind direction in their respective masses will be  more perpendicular, with cold air underneath.  As the warm air is forced upwards, rain sleet, snow will result.

Weather awareness certainly is a very important part of pretrip planning before even a short local flight.
While cold air masses usually are of higher density than warmer air, wind direction and pressure play key roles.
What makes it a "front" is movement over the ground one way or the other.  Cold fronts are usually sharply defined because the denser air moves underneath the warm air and pushes it away.  Precipitation can be intense, but short lived, followed by rapid clearing.
If the wind direction is right, such as ahead of a low pressure area (in the northern hemisphere), warm air will advance across the ground.  These fronts ride up over the colder air, sometimes for hundreds of miles.  They bring lowering and thickening clouds, "showery precipitation", and fog before finally moving through.
Warm fronts are notorious for creating freezing rain under the right conditions and must be approached with caution when flying.  Cold fronts primarily carry the risk of severe weather and turbulence.
When cold and warm sit side by side with little movement, or are moving in the same direction (as near the middle of a low), they are said to be occluded.
Another type of front is a "dry line".  Humid air is less dense than dry air of the same temperature.  Dry lines should be watched as they also can produce severe weather and turbulence (as would that second diagram!).
Generally, the cold front and warm air wind directions are more perpendicular to each other.


text:
Why would the Speedbrake be required for such a long time on approach?
As far as I was aware, the Speedbrake is designed to slow the aircraft down. On landing, I do understand why they are required. Once the aircraft has hit the tarmac, they are deployed to 1) slow the aircraft and 2) prevent the aircraft from bouncing up and down. The airflow over the wing increases doesn’t it? To ‘push’ the aircraft down, as I say, preventing it from jumping up and down.
I have (7 hours ago) just landed on a B757, but the Speedbrake was up pretty much for 70% of the descent and approach.

Thinking back to my previous introductory paragraph, the reasoning must have been excessive speed, no? Or a need for the aircraft to slow down dramatically. Is this the case, or am I missing something obvious?
I know Air France flight 447 considered deploying the Speedbrake when their Airbus gave them faulty warnings of speed and altitude; it was advised then that this would have been completely the wrong thing to do.
I have never seen it before, as much as I did today on descent, and I wonder why the Speedbrake was required for near on 70% of our approach?

Not a pilot, so I can’t explain the intricacies of approaches, but, the primary purpose of the speed brake is actually for approach and descent to either slow the aircraft or change the angle of attack. It does have a secondary function once you’ve landed to do the functions you already listed. Another name for them is AIR brakes.

There are two reasons I can think of off the bat:

Its possible the controller asked them to hold a slow speed due to increased traffic ahead. The brakes may have been deployed to match the speed requested. I have heard this called on occasion over the radio in the terminal area I fly.
The controller cleared them for a steeper decent than usual this would cause them to potentially deploy the speedbrakes to make the descent rate.

This article discusses it in reference to small planes but idea is the same. And another article by a CFI here.

Thank you Dave. The drag was increased dramatically. I think you may be right, it was a very steep descent.

In the configuration the OP provided, aren't those surfaces functioning as lift dumpers rather the speed brakes?

@BillDOe, lift must be equal to weight in straight flight—otherwise the plane would be accelerating downward. The devices do indeed work by interfering with lift generation, but in flight it just causes the angle of attack to increase to compensate, which causes increase in induced drag.

@BillDOe, note that as lift dumpers on the ground, the spoilers extend much more than this. However, with fully extended spoilers the wing would be simply unable to generate enough lift at the approach speed and stall, so in flight they are only ever extended partially, which is what the image shows.

Those are spoilers...not speed brakes.  They do increase drag, but their primary function is that they kill lift.  They allow the aircraft to lose altitude rapidly without pointing the nose downhill and picking up speed.
You will also see them deploy upon touch down.  At high speeds they increase drag and thereby aid in deceleration, but again they kill lift making the weight on wheels higher allowing for much more effective wheel braking.
In the case you mention, the aircraft could have been held at a higher altitude longer than desired, and the pilot simply used them to get back on schedule.
Here is an example of a true speed brake.  The sole purpose being to increase drag.

Although I agree that those are spoilers, Boeing calls them speed brakes. It's written on the top of the handle. I guess because they function in both respects

Those are "flight spoilers" which may be standalone or may be the landing lift dumpers doing double duty, or a combination thereof, and are used to increase sink rate, not as speed brakes as such.  They were being used there because the descent profile in the arrival clearance was steeper than an engines-idle glide.  There are times when you have to use them but in general you try to avoid using them because when deployed you "wasting" energy and are below the most fuel efficient descent profile.  Some airlines discourage pilots from using them unless really necessary because they can alarm passengers.  You won't generally see them on final approach because the idle descent with gear and flaps down is more than steep enough so that some power is required, and on some jets there is a limitation that requires you to be somewhat above Vref (flaps down approach speed), say Vre +15 knots or something like that, to deploy them.  If you see flight spoilers being extended on final with gear and flaps down, somebody probably messed up.

Speed brakes are often used on aircraft that are very clean (i.e., have very low drag), and, as a result cannot descend at a steep enough glide angle even with power at idle to satisfy minimum descent gradients for some specific phase of flight. This is especially true on final approaches, where the approach glide path may be steeper than the aircraft can descend with idle power and maintain a constant airspeed.
Another more legacy reason was in the early days of jet aircraft, centrifugal flow and early axial flow turbojet aircraft had poor fuel control systems and could not increase engine rpm very fast. In some aircraft, it could take 20 to 30 seconds to accelerate the engine from idle to full power. As a result, flying approaches in idle was very dangerous. In these cases speed brakes were used to allow the aircraft to be flown on normal final approach glide path angles with the power set at higher, medium throttle positions so that unexpected power requirements (e.g., for go-arounds) could be satisfied in less time.


text:
Is the EASA RT License valid internationally?
I am planning to get a PPL license in Czech. As part of the PPL license I should get a RT License (in English, not Czech).
Is that license is international? I mean, if I want to rent an Airplane in another country in Europe (like Hungary), should I get Hungarian RT license? or my Czech RT license is valid for all EASA countries?
In addition, is the PPL EASA license (with valid RT license) sufficient to rent aircraft in Europe?
Or do I have to pass some test for each country?

The answer saying that "Each country has their own governing rules regarding qualification for Private Pilot Licenses" is of course wrong. The OP has specifically asked about EASA. The privileges of an EASA licence may be exercised by the holder in any EASA member country by virtue of § 11.1 of the Basic Regulation – Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.

if I want to rent an Airplane in another country in Europe (like Hungary), should I get Hungarian RT license? or my Czech RT license is valid for all EASA countries?

The latter.

is the PPL EASA license (with valid RT license) sufficient to rent aircraft in Europe? Or do I have to pass some test for each country?

The former (don't forget about the medical!). Of course, nobody in their right mind are going to let you fly their aircraft without having you checked out first, but that's a club / school / owner policy not something State-mandated.
In any event, ask your flying school in the first instance and the CAA in the second. Only a complete fool would rely on random stuff seen on the internet!

I'm afraid the license is not international. Each country has their own governing rules regarding qualification for Private Pilot Licenses.
Prior to traveling and assuming you will be allowed to fly in the country you plan to travel, I'd get ahold of the home country's Aviation Administration and request what their qualifying tests and licenses require. Hope this helps.

Do you know for EASA specifically or are you just guessing from the general case? Because EASA is special.

My comment applies to EASA specifically. Also pertaining to general guidance, it's common practice to, at the least, take a written exam to ensure you adhere to the country's guidelines. I've written multiple research papers regarding requirements and certifications across the globe.